Broome v Perkins: Criminal Law Chapter 13 Quiz and Flashcards

Podcast

Play an AI-generated podcast conversation about this lesson

Questions and Answers

What is the primary purpose of a defendant's denials in a criminal trial?

To prove their innocence

To shift the burden of proof to the prosecution

To mitigate the severity of the punishment

To establish reasonable doubt (correct)

What is the significance of the two points in time, t1 and t2, in the context of prior fault?

They determine the defendant's state of mind at the time of the offence

They distinguish between the defendant's blameworthy act and the completion of the actus reus (correct)

They are used to calculate the defendant's level of intoxication

They represent the start and end dates of the trial

Why may raising evidence of intoxication, automatism, or insanity be useful for a defendant?

To prove their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt

To demonstrate their lack of mens rea (correct)

To establish a partial defence

To discredit the prosecution's witnesses

What is the consequence of a defendant's prior fault in cases of intoxication, automatism, or insanity?

The defendant is liable regardless of their denial Signup and view all the answers

What is the role of the prosecution in a criminal trial?

To prove the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt Signup and view all the answers

What is the relationship between a defendant's denials and the burden of proof?

The defendant's denials are aimed at creating reasonable doubt, which does not affect the burden of proof Signup and view all the answers

What is the primary consideration when assessing whether D's intoxication can be used as a denial of offending?

Whether D's intoxication led to a lack of mens rea Signup and view all the answers

What is the significance of 'prior fault' in the context of intoxication and criminal liability?

It is a method of inculpation, substituting for missing offence elements Signup and view all the answers

What is the essential element required for prior fault intoxication rules to apply?

D must be voluntarily intoxicated Signup and view all the answers

What is the implication of D's intoxication on their criminal liability?

D's intoxication can provide some moral mitigation, but it is not a defence to criminal offences Signup and view all the answers

What is the significance of T1 and T2 in the context of intoxication and criminal liability?

T1 refers to the time of intoxication, and T2 refers to the time of the offence Signup and view all the answers

What is the implication of D's lack of mens rea due to intoxication?

D lacks an essential element of the offence, and therefore cannot be found liable Signup and view all the answers

What is the requirement for intoxication under the intoxication rules?

Sufficient to establish a reasonable doubt Signup and view all the answers

When can a defendant claim to have been affected by a mental condition triggered by earlier voluntary intoxication?

If they were sober at the time of the alleged offence Signup and view all the answers

What is the relevance of prior fault in cases of involuntary intoxication?

It does not affect liability Signup and view all the answers

According to the leading case of Kingston, when do the intoxication rules apply?

When the prosecution cannot establish the elements of the offence Signup and view all the answers

What is the significance of voluntariness in cases of intoxication?

It does not affect liability Signup and view all the answers

How has involuntariness been defined in cases of intoxication?

Narrowly defined Signup and view all the answers

What is the exception to the rule that a defendant cannot rely on an intoxicated mistake of belief?

Where the defendant believed the owner was consenting or would have consented to the damage Signup and view all the answers

What is the result of a defendant successfully raising the defence of sane automatism?

An unqualified acquittal Signup and view all the answers

What is a key difference between the rules on automatism and those on intoxication?

The automatism rules will not apply where the defendant's state of automatism is caused by a dangerous drug Signup and view all the answers

What is required for a defendant to raise the defence of automatism?

Some evidence of involuntariness Signup and view all the answers

What is the significance of the case of Broome v Perkins in relation to automatism?

It imposed a strict view on the level of involuntariness required to amount to automatism Signup and view all the answers

What is the consequence of a defendant's prior fault in cases of automatism?

The defendant may be held liable on the basis of prior fault Signup and view all the answers

What is the primary distinction between specific intent and basic intent offences?

Specific intent offences require intention, while basic intent offences require recklessness. Signup and view all the answers

What is the main difference between voluntary and involuntary intoxication?

Voluntary intoxication is a conscious choice, while involuntary intoxication is not. Signup and view all the answers

What is the relevance of the 'Dutch courage' exception in specific intent offences?

It allows the court to consider the defendant's prior fault in becoming intoxicated. Signup and view all the answers

What is the requirement for establishing liability in basic intent offences?

The defendant's prior fault in becoming intoxicated must be sufficient to replace the lack of Mens Rea. Signup and view all the answers

What is the significance of the 'prior fault' in the prior fault intoxication rules?

It refers to the defendant's prior fault in becoming intoxicated. Signup and view all the answers

What is the requirement for a drug to be considered 'dangerous' in the context of prior fault intoxication rules?

It must be commonly known to cause unpredictability and/or aggression. Signup and view all the answers

What is the final element of the prior fault intoxication rules?

The defendant's prior fault must have been the reason for their lack of Mens Rea. Signup and view all the answers

What is the effect of voluntary intoxication on the defendant's use of defences?

It eliminates the defendant's ability to use defences. Signup and view all the answers

What is the significance of the case of Allen in the context of prior fault intoxication rules?

It illustrates the distinction between voluntary and involuntary intoxication. Signup and view all the answers

What is the purpose of the prior fault intoxication rules?

To establish liability for crimes committed while intoxicated, where the defendant lacks Mens Rea. Signup and view all the answers

What happens to D if she satisfies the insanity rules?

D will be given a qualified acquittal of not guilty by reason of insanity Signup and view all the answers

What determines which set of rules should apply in a case?

The source of D's lack of mens rea Signup and view all the answers

What happens to D if she does not satisfy the insanity rules?

D will be given an unqualified acquittal Signup and view all the answers

Why is the case for prior fault insanity rules weaker than for intoxication and automatism?

Because the special verdict already allows for compulsory treatment without needing to establish fault Signup and view all the answers

What is the difference between a qualified acquittal and an unqualified acquittal?

A qualified acquittal means D is not guilty by reason of insanity, while an unqualified acquittal means D is not guilty Signup and view all the answers

When should the automatism rules be applied?

When D's conduct is involuntary as a result of an external factor other than a dangerous drug Signup and view all the answers

What is a necessary condition for the prior fault automatism rules to apply?

D's automatism at T2 Signup and view all the answers

What is the significance of the prior fault intoxiation rules in relation to automatism?

They provide an additional requirement for liability Signup and view all the answers

What is the primary purpose of the prior fault automatism rules?

To establish D's liability Signup and view all the answers

What is the significance of the special verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity?

It provides a technical acquittal with restrictions Signup and view all the answers

What is the requirement for the defence of insanity to apply?

All of the above Signup and view all the answers

What is the significance of the element 'causing a defect of reason' in the insanity rules?

It provides a defence for D Signup and view all the answers

What is the significance of the element 'causing a lack of responsibility' in the insanity rules?

It shows D did not know the nature or quality of her act Signup and view all the answers

What is the significance of the caselaw 'Clarke' in the context of insanity?

It clarified the elements of insanity Signup and view all the answers

What is the significance of the caselaw 'Kemp' in the context of automatism?

It shows D's involuntariness stemmed from an internal bodily condition Signup and view all the answers

What is the significance of the caselaw 'Windel' in the context of insanity?

It shows D did not know her actions were wrong Signup and view all the answers

Study Notes

Denials of Offending

The prosecution has the burden of proving all elements of the offence beyond a reasonable doubt, and the defendant's denials are about establishing doubt in any relevant form.
Raising evidence of intoxication, automatism, or insanity can be useful where the defendant seeks to deny an offence.

Prior Fault and Denials of Offending

Prior fault rules can find liability regardless of the defendant's denial, where the defendant's intoxication, automatism, or insanity resulted from their own prior fault (e.g., dangerous drug taking).
Two points in time are distinguished:
- T1: when the defendant performed the blameworthy act (e.g., voluntarily becoming intoxicated).
- T2: when the defendant completed the actus reus of the offence, but lacked the necessary mens rea due to intoxication/automatism/insanity.

Intoxication

Intoxication rules do not require the intoxication to be of a specific type or degree, as long as it is sufficient to establish a reasonable doubt as to whether the defendant had mens rea.
D's intoxication only becomes relevant to liability if, as a result of the intoxication, an element of the offence is charged absent.

Prior Fault Intoxication as a Method of Inculpation

Where the prosecution fail to establish that the defendant had mens rea at the time of the offence (T2) due to intoxication, the starting point is that no liability should be found.
However, where the defendant has been responsible for bringing about that state of intoxication, there are strong policy reasons in favour of finding liability.

Elements of Prior Fault Intoxication

Element 1: D must be voluntarily intoxicated.
Element 2: D's offence must be one of basic intent.
Element 3: D must have taken a dangerous drug.
Element 4: D must have lacked mens rea because of intoxication.

Basic Intent Offences

Examples: manslaughter, malicious wounding or causing GBH (s20), assault occasioning ABH (s47), assault and battery, rape, sexual assault, criminal damage (where only recklessness is alleged).
D's prior fault in becoming voluntarily intoxicated at T1 may be sufficient to replace her lack of mens rea for these offences.

Specific Intent Offences

Examples: murder, wounding or causing GBH with intent (s18), theft, robbery, section 9(1)(a) burglary, attempt to commit a specific intent offence, complicity.
D's prior fault in becoming voluntarily intoxicated at T1 is not sufficient to replace her lack of mens rea for these offences.

Dutch Courage

Where an intoxicated defendant lacks mens rea for a specific intent offence, this is usually the end of the matter: D's intoxication cannot replace her lack of mens rea, so there is no liability for that offence.
However, there may be an exception where the defendant becomes intoxicated at T1 in order to commit the specific intent offence at T2 (dutch courage).

Automatism

Automatism is a denial of offending, claiming that some external factor affected the defendant's body at T1 and caused them to lack voluntariness at T1.
Three differences from intoxication rules:
1. Automatism rules will not apply where the defendant's state of automatism is caused by a dangerous drug.
2. Automatism will only apply where the defendant loses voluntary control of their conduct.
3. The potential for the defendant to be held liable based on prior fault is considerably more limited.

Combining Intoxication, Automatism, and Insanity

Identifying which set of rules to apply is crucial.
If the defendant's lack of mens rea stems from an internal factor, only the insanity rules should apply.
If the defendant's lack of mens rea stems from voluntary consumption of a dangerous drug, only the prior-fault intoxication rules should apply.
If the defendant's conduct is involuntary as a result of an external factor other than a dangerous drug, only the automatism rules should apply.### Voluntariness Requirement
A conscious link between D and the harmful or wrongful events attributed to her is essential for individual autonomy.
Prior fault automatism is a method of inculpation where D's automatism at T2 arises from blameworthy conduct at T1.

Prior Fault Automatism

Element 1: D must be in a state of automatism at T2 when completing the AR of the offence.
Element 2: D must have acted with prior fault at T1, such as subjectively foreseeing the potential for involuntariness at T2.
Element 3: D must be charged with a basic intent offence, where prior fault at T1 can replace or substitute for the missing elements of the offence at T2.

Automatism and Defences

Where D successfully raises automatism in the absence of prior fault, she has not committed an offence, and there is no need to consider potential defences.
Where D raises automatism in circumstances of prior fault, the prior fault automatism rules create liability, and defences must be considered.
Defences can apply at T2 or T1, such as duress or threats.

Insanity

Insanity arises where D claims not to have fulfilled all the elements of the offence due to some malfunctioning of her body (internal factor).
Insanity as a defence arises where D has completed the AR and MR of an offence, and claims she was insane at the time, thereby avoiding liability.
The presumption of sanity creates a legal burden, requiring D to prove (on the balance of probabilities) that she was insane at the time of the offence.

Special Verdict of Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity

Where D satisfies the insanity rules, she will not receive an unqualified acquittal, but instead a special verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity.
The court can impose a range of disposal orders, including hospital orders, supervision orders, or an absolute discharge.

Insanity as a Denial of Offending

Element 1: D must have been suffering from a disease of the mind, which can be an internal bodily condition or psychological blow.
Element 2: The disease of the mind must have caused a defect of reason, which led to D's involuntariness or lack of MR.
Element 3: The defect of reason must have caused D to lack responsibility for the harms caused, either because she did not understand the nature or quality of what she was doing, or because she did not know it was wrong.

Lack of Responsibility

D does not know the nature or quality of her act: This is a claim that D did not know what she was doing, and it is a reference to the physical nature of D's conduct.
D does not know that her act is wrong: This limb of the insanity rules will usually arise where D has committed an offence (both AR and MR) and raises insanity as a defence.

Studying That Suits You

Use AI to generate personalized quizzes and flashcards to suit your learning preferences.

Description

Test your understanding of denials of liability and exculpation in criminal law, including the role of prior fault and the burden of proof. Learn how defendants can establish doubt and deny an offence without proving innocence.

Criminal Law Chapter 13: Denials of an Offence

Choose a study mode